as long there are no microtrans actions or seasonal passes im fine with this. it better be a completed game not like no man sky or sea of thiefs or halo type games were there in a beta form for years before it feels completed. firm were updates are fine for games. they don't get every bug before launch.
$70 is completely justified. When I was old enough to buy my first games, they cost $65 and a typical hourly wage was $18. Now they cost $60 and the average hourly wage is $30. Games have got a lot cheaper over the years compared to 2001.
Not to mention I can find loads of games for $20-30 that are still relatively new. 30 minutes of my salary for something that lasts many hours is dirt cheap entertainment.
If everyone else follows suit then I'm not buying any day one games anymore. In fact, I won't buy anything next gen until we start getting cheaper games. Nothing more than 50, maybe $60 but no higher. The developers are friggin crazy if they think I'm gonna start paying 70 bucks for every new game.
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
You expected the corporate executives to be gamers?
Why not? Phil plays games. Shuhei plays games. Reggie plays games.
Okay, let me correct myself: You expected all corporate executives of game companies to be gamers? The consumer-facing ones are more likely since many of them are devs who rose through the ranks, but HR and lower-level managers? It's possible but not something you should take as a given.
Log in to comment